BRENNAN DEVERAUX
With the Army’s renewed emphasis on professional writing, a disturbing narrative will likely resurface that publishing is dangerous to an author’s career. While many have articulated the benefits of joining the professional discourse, myself included, prospective authors may imagine backlash from a poorly received article. To take a public stance and challenge the status quo is terrifying; it is the status quo for a reason, after all. Consequently, a rumor, fueled by anecdotal stories, permeates across the force that authors who go against established norms will face career-altering reprisals. While this risk is blown out of proportion, there are gray areas authors should consider before diving into controversial topics.
Origin Stories
The Army lauds prominent historical figures like George Patton and Dwight Eisenhower for challenging Army doctrine and publishing critical articles during the interwar period a century ago. Less often discussed is the controversy surrounding these efforts. At the time, Major General Charles Farnsworth, the Chief of the Infantry, threatened to court martial Eisenhower if he continued publishing ideas that undermined established infantry doctrine. While the court martial did not come to fruition, this example is a troubling reminder that an argument, regardless of its merits, may anger people of influence. A response to a professional article may become a personal matter if perceived as an affront to someone’s life work or if it could endanger their livelihood. While few historical examples highlight officers being reprimanded at the institutional level for their ideas, except when the comments were illegal, anecdotes are much easier to come by.
An Anecdote or Two
Publishing an article is not all congratulations and high-fives—but publishing has opened more doors for me than it closed. Sometimes people vehemently disagree with a published piece. These people generally fit into one of three categories: the defense community audience, an invested group like members of a specific branch, or individuals in the chain of command. While I never thought I was writing anything controversial, I have angered someone in each of these categories by crafting arguments on topics such as the Army’s body composition program, the service’s pursuit of long-range missiles, artillery employment, and incentivizing leadership. I often dismiss the negative comments I receive, laughing at being called a “candy man” or a “Russian propagandist.” When these comments came via email, I usually responded, “Thanks for reading my article.” As shown by my lighthearted response, I did not put much weight into the comments of strangers. Maybe I should. I have heard horror stories, the friend of a friend who was “blacklisted” in their community by some powerful colonel or senior Army civilian. However, a recent survey and my experiences suggest negative experiences are rare, with my writing more often opening doors.
The only time my writing came with a career risk was during the pre-publication process. As a young staff captain, I shared an early draft of an article about changing rocket artillery qualification tables with my chain of command. It was not well received. My battalion commander directed me to stand down. This was an eye-opening experience. I realized it was great to challenge the Army, but going directly against something the chain of command is passionate about could have repercussions. Fortunately, there is a way to approach this diplomatically. I chose to wait and published the article three years later. Others chose to write under a pseudonym.
Eddard Stark
While not standard practice today, authors can publish their articles with certain venues under a pen name.1 Most authors will never need to do this; your article is not as controversial as you think it is. But the option exists, perpetuating the fear of reprisals. Why else would they advertise it? War on the Rocks, for example, allows “writers to use pen names in the rare cases when their careers or personal safety would be at serious risk as a result of publishing an article on a specific topic.” In 2018, an Air Force colonel used this policy to speak out against the service’s management of its senior leaders. Colonel Jason Lamb wrote numerous articles under the Game of Thrones pseudonym Ned Stark before revealing his identity. But Lamb’s ideas did not receive the outrage he expected. Instead, the Air Force Chief of Staff offered Ned Stark a job and asked him to “please just keep writing. Your chief is reading and listening.” The institution wants dialogue, even if a select minority of leaders do not.
Conclusion
Publishing has an inherent risk; write enough, and someone will get angry. However, the dangers of professional writing are severely exaggerated and outweighed by the countless benefits. Conduct pre-publication reviews, bounce ideas off your boss or mentor, challenge ideas instead of people, and ignore reprisal rumors. Careers do not end over well-crafted arguments and good intentions, even if you have heard it happened to someone your friend’s friend used to work with.
No comments:
Post a Comment